Trump: The First Thirty Days

By Rich Kozlovich

No one has ever seen an administration hit the ground running as has been seen with Donald Trump's second administration.  He not only had a vision in place, he had the people ready to go from the beginning to carry out that vision, and Washington and the Democrat Party are in a panic! - in just three weeks, and terrified.  

 

One writer noted that pollsters are waiting anxiously for the Democrat party to put out something attacking Trump that's more than obnoxious hyperventilating, marching, screaming, and lying, but they can't because they'll have to defend the indefensible, and the blowback has been fierce.  The more they hyperventilate the more insane they look, and when 60% of the public approves of his actions, you better have something intelligent and rational to attack him with, or just shut up, but they're not, and they won't.  And the Pravda media can't save them now. 

1. The Left Tried to Relaunch Anti-Trump Protests for President’s Day - It didn’t go well. 
2. Trump Polls Better Than Schumer Among New York Jews - 2025 Majority of New York Jews approve of Trump.  

They're doubling down on stupid, and I think we need to applaud them and hope they keep up the good work.  Here's some of the stuff that's taken place over the last 30 days, and the reactions by the lunatic left, policies he initiated that caused so much consternation.... and ridicule. 

He threatened to retake the Panama Canal over Panama's embrace of China in effect giving China a lot of say over how the canal was controlled, and his adversaries went ballistic.  Result? Panama Says It Will Not Renew ‘Belt and Road’ Agreement With China After Rubio Visit.

Then there was the Greenland issue and more hyperventilating by the EU, Denmark, the Pravda media crowd, all claiming this was never going to happen....wellll.... maybe it will.  Now Denmark is open to U.S. expansion in Greenland.  Imagine that!

Sheryl Crow made a big show of selling her Tesla because she hates what Elon Muck is doing to eliminate the massive levels of corruption and fraud going on in the federal government, provable corruption and fraud, but no one has a way with words like Senator John Kennedy saying:

"I think she means well, but if she ever had a clever thought, it died alone and afraid,” ........Joe Biden “got alot of his advice from pop singers, movie stars and people who partied with Harvey Weinstein… and we know how that turned out.”

Pete Buttigieg insinuates that Trump’s IG firing spree has something to do with promoting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’, because he fired a bunch of Inspector Generals for their failure to find and fight waste, fraud and abuse.  Olivia Murray says:

 

 If I didn’t know better, I’d think these progressives were actually without a brain.........Where was Buttigieg when the federal government took $7.5 billion to build a national network of electric vehicle chargers, but somehow only managed to build seven? Oh that’s right, he’s the one who oversaw that whole debacle. More than a billion dollars to throw up a single charging outlet? Where did the money go? Well, the inspectors general didn’t really care to find out—maybe that’s part of the reason they were fired?

 

 Did Buttigieg speak up when his colleagues “accidentally” sent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Taliban? Did he voice his concerns over leaving billions of dollars in military equipment in Afghanistan for absolutely no apparent reason at all? Did he have anything to say when it was revealed that the Biden administration was still leasing massive office buildings, and paying to furnish them, despite being completely unused?

No, no, and no.

And he's thinking of running for the Senate or a governorship.  Maybe he should try for California.  They deserve each other. 

I hope everyone pays close attention to Trump's economic threats against Canada and Mexico, since after pandering to their base, ranting, chest pounding, and ventilating, they're going to capitulate, just as Mexico is doing regarding securing the border.  Mexican Authorities Arrest Cartel Boss “El Ricky” After Trump Tariffs Force Mexico to Secure Border.  They've even brought in Green Beret's to train their forces, and allowing drone overflights to track the cartels.  When Canadian politicians make threats regarding their response to Trump's tariffs, it's laughable.  Without the US, Canada doesn't have an economy, especially since Trudeau relinquished authority to the World Economic Forum.

His economic actions are going international:

The Impact of Trump's Withdrawal From the OECD Global Tax Deal - Trump's move to exit the deal and investigate other countries' alleged discriminatory tax policies could result in the U.S. imposing retaliatory trade and tax measures on foreign companies and individuals.

The German central bank agrees with President Trump! -Bundesbank president Joachim Nagel admits that America’s economy has suffered under unfair trade practices of Germany and that Trump’s tariffs will level the playing field.

South Africa is a disaster on proportions almost unimaginable.  No matter what anyone thinks about apartheid, nothing happened then that could possible compare to what's happening to the people in South Africa now.  Government sponsored white genocide, and I'm not seeing the ICC, or the UN doing a thing about it, but Trump is.  Trump Becomes First President to Hold South Africa Accountable. 

While the EU and the Obama/Biden cabal catered to Iran and the issue of nuclear weapons, Trump won't have it, and is putting ‘Maximum Pressure’ Policy in place to keep Iran from from possessing nukes, and you would think the EU would be supportive since it's been reported they either posses, or are attempting to acquire missiles that can hit Europe. 

Trump has exited the World Health Organization, who corruptly promoted the fraudulent covid disaster, an organization that was trying to get the world to give them worldwide authority over health issues, including the ability to declare worldwide pandemics and issue directives the world would have to follow.  Hello W.H.O., Trump says you should hit the bricks, and Argentina has followed suit.  Now these would be dictators are whining because Trump exiting W.H.O. will leave them underfunded.  And that's a bad thing why?  

 

Trump Must Cut Millions of Tax-Funded “Private” Jobs - The effect on many NGOs was immediate. Many started complaining that they would not be able to meet payroll or survive without a constant inflow of government largesse. Thus, in recent weeks, one hears repeatedly of layoffs of taxpayer-funded employees as thousands of ostensibly non-governmental organizations find themselves cut off from their main source of income: the taxpayer gravy train.......... (My Take - Again, and that's a bad thing why? RK)

 

But it isn't just W.H.O. that's going to be cut off as Orban Warns That Soros-Backed NGOs Are Begging Europe for Money After Trump Cut Off Their USAID Slush Fund, and I doubt they're going to get much out of the EU as they're fearing what Trump is going to do to their economies, and let's not have any doubts, their economic situation is dire, and it's a toss up which will go belly up first, France, Italy, or Greece.  

 

Europe is a spent force that refused to accept everything they've been doing for decades is insane, and when the EU collapses and comes begging on their knees for America to bail them out .....again...... , the answer will be no, Bretton Woods is over, and America can no longer afford their leeching on the American taxpayer to support their insanity, we have our own issues to be concerned about.  And when that collapse happens, China and Russia will be following closely behind them.

Secretary Bessent has order the CFPB to stop most of it's work,  Trump is working to abolish the Department of Education, thousands of federal employee have taken the buyout, the administration is investigating the rampant antisemitism in America's universities, even the teacher's unions are going to be scrutinized for their antisemitism.   

1. One-Third of U.S. Jewish College Students Feel Faculty Promote Antisemitism and a Hostile Learning Environment
2.  Massachusetts schools teach antisemitism

He's taken on the octopus, and he's ripping off the bandage, and it hurts, as a result just about everything here is being challenged by the left in the federal courts, with illegal "national" injunctions.  Never in the history of the United States has temporary injunctions been allowed nationwide by the courts.  

 

Daniel Greenfield calls it a Judicial Coup saying:

 

 In the weeks since President Trump took office, federal judges have arrogated to themselves the authority to control how the government spends money, whether the government can issue orders to government personnel and even the content displayed on government websites.  Federal judges have claimed that the White House can’t offer buyouts to federal employees, can’t fire political appointees from the previous administrations, can’t pause funding, can’t cut funds to government programs, can’t change formulas allocating government grants and also can’t remove transgender ideology from government websites put there by its predecessors. And if the White House doesn’t even control government websites, what does it control?

 

What we're now seeing is unchangeable evidence the federal judiciary is out of control, in total violation of the Constitutional restrictions regarding the separation of powers, and that needs to change. 

Null and Void?

If President Biden didn’t comprehend what he was doing, are his laws, orders and regs valid? 

Paul Driessen

Laws in every state govern wills and the transfer of estates and property upon a testator’s death. For example, Virginia statutes provide that “any individual may make a will,” except testators who are unemancipated minors or “of unsound mind.”

Unsound mind generally means not having mastery of one’s mental faculties, which could include being enfeebled enough that the testator is easily subject to improper influence by others, especially someone who would benefit from provisions of the will.

Virginia law considers someone to be of unsound mind if his or her cognitive capacity is totally impaired, meaning the person is incapable of acting rationally or understanding conversations, instructions or decisions. In other jurisdictions, impairment may not have to be “total.” Wills executed by such persons are rendered invalid, null and void.

How might these guidelines apply in other circumstances – decisions by President Biden, for instance?

Joe Biden’s declining mental and physical capabilities were apparent to many even before his election and inauguration. His Delaware basement campaign, to avoid awkward encounters with reporters and citizens, raised many questions. During his presidency, family, White House staff, legacy media, Democrats in Congress and others worked hard to hide, obfuscate, defend and excuse his infirmities, even as they became harder to deny.

Millions wondered just when President Biden became cognitively incapable of leading the United States and Free World. His inability became so obvious during the June 2024 Biden-Trump debate that Democrat Party leaders pushed the 46th president out of the race. But what about before that?

An article published shortly before President Trump’s 2025 inauguration revealed that House Speaker Mike Johnson knew Mr. Biden was no longer “in charge” of the White House, presidency or country long before his cognitive incapacities were finally acknowledged by those whose jobs, prestige or political agendas depended on him being “the best Biden ever.”

During a January 2024 Oval Office meeting with President Biden, the Speaker particularly wanted to discuss a Biden Executive Order that blocked liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. Russia’s war with Ukraine, the likelihood of renewed European dependence on Russian gas if US LNG exports were terminated, and the extent that would enrich Putin’s war machine made this a serious national security issue. Johnson wanted to know WHY Biden had signed the EO just weeks earlier.

“I didn’t do that,” Biden insisted. But in fact, he had.

Johnson suggested that Biden’s staff print the EO, so that the two of them could read it together. Biden finally, but vaguely, acknowledged signing the order. But as PJ Media columnist Matt Margolis noted, it soon “became evident that the President had no grasp” of actually having signed the EO, or of the implications of having done so. 

“I thought, we’re in serious trouble. Who is running the country?” Margolis quoted Johnson. “I don't know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know,” either, Johnson added.

“This exchange underscores a chilling reality,” Margolis wrote. We had a president who not only was “struggling to remember critical decisions” but was also “unable to engage fully in high-stakes discussions with national security implications.” Biden was clearly “not fully in charge.”

When did that incapacity actually set in? And what does that imply for dozens, perhaps hundreds, of executive actions, regulatory sign-offs and presidential signatures enacting legislation into law?

Are they still valid? Or have some (or many) been rendered null and void, because President Biden was no longer in control of his mental faculties? Or because he was enfeebled enough that he was subject to improper influence by staffers who were pursuing agendas even more radical than the president would have agreed to, had he actually been “in charge,” including staffers who might benefit from certain presidential decisions?

Executive Orders can be reversed by EOs signed by a successor president. President Trump did that with a flurry of signatures during his first week in office. Formal rulemakings must go through a more lengthy  and thorough process but can still be undone or rewritten by another administration.

That will certainly be the case with the Obama EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” declaring that plant-fertilizing, planetary-life-giving carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.”

However, the Biden Administration promulgated 3,248 final rules and regulations – a record 107,262 Federal Register pages. They reflect President Biden’s determination to exert federal control over nearly every aspect of climate change, “equity and social justice,” economic and environmental issues, and our daily lives – including “efficiency” rules for cars, stoves, dishwashers, furnaces and water heaters.

Many of these rulemakings will undoubtedly be examined and reversed under the Congressional Review Act. Others will fall outside its purview and require more than Trump Executive Orders.

And what about Biden’s pardons, many of them murderers and hardened criminals; others convicted offenders like his son; still others people who haven’t yet been charged or convicted of crimes but were given preemptive pardons, in case prosecutors later decide no one should be above the law?

Still more complicated will be legislation, such as the multi-trillion-dollar, pork-laden, Green-New-Deal-subsidizing Inflation Reduction Act, the $1-trillion infrastructure law, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and many others signed by Mr. Biden.  

If they merit revision or recission, must Congress and President Trump go through an entire legislative process – and overcome almost certain Democrat “resistance” – to change or cancel them?

Or do some of these Biden Era laws (and regulations and pardons) fall within the parameters of a wills and estates “unsound mind” analog? If so, at what point was President Biden too cognitively impaired to know what he was agreeing to or signing? Who makes that determination, and on what basis?

It’s definitely a case of first impression, and the outcomes are far from easy, ensured or predictable. But it’s also another way for President Trump and Republicans to reexamine extreme Biden Era decisions.

I went to law school, was licensed in two states, practiced mostly legislative and regulatory law, even wrote a couple of Supreme Court briefs. But mostly I’ve been a policy wonk – pondering, developing, promoting, opposing, and implementing or rejecting public policies.

The Biden cognitive issue reminds me of humorist Will Rogers’ answer to the threat of World War I German U-boats that were savaging Allied shipping. Rogers proposed that the US Navy “heat the Atlantic Ocean to the boiling point. Then, when the ocean gets too hot for them German subs to stay underwater, they’ll have to come to the surface” and we can “pick ‘em off one by one.”

Of course, he averred, some admirals were likely to ask how they were supposed to boil the ocean. Rogers had an answer. “I leave that to the technicians. Myself, I’m a policy man.”

Like Will Rogers, I’m just presenting policy ideas. It’s up to President Trump, Congress, courts and neuropsychologists to figure out how to implement them.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

Where Does Kamala Stand?

By Francis Menton, September 13, 2024  @ Manhattan Contrarian

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s debate, it’s appropriate to try to figure out where the candidates stand on some of the important issues. With Trump, that’s not very hard: he has a limited number of themes that are mostly quite specific, and he repeats them endlessly. But with Harris, it’s remarkably difficult. Many of her positions today seem to be different from, if not the opposite of, where she stood when last she articulated a list of positions, which was during her brief campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2019. In the current campaign, she rarely addresses a significant issue directly. During the debate, when asked to address some issues, she resorted to carefully scripted talking points that could be subject to multiple interpretations.

But then we have the actual record of the Biden/Harris administration to use to interpret any intentionally ambiguous statements. Actions speak much louder than words.

So let’s consider some of her statements during the debate, in the context of the actions of the administration of which she is a part, or of her own prior actions. For these purposes, I have found a transcript of the debate to get her exact words.

Energy Policy

In my post of September 3, I took note of Harris’s apparent recent flip-flop on the issue of “fracking.” That post had a quote from Harris from 2019 that was completely definitive on the issue: "“[T]here’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” But in her one press interview since being nominated, the CNN interview of August 29, she had said “we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”

But “fracking” is only a piece of energy policy, and “banning” fracking is only one of many possible approaches. Short of banning fracking, there could be restricting it, obstructing it, hindering it in every way possible, and banishing it from federal lands. And then there are all the other pieces of energy policy, like drilling generally (on federal lands and offshore), pipelines, power plants, electric versus combustion vehicles, subsidies for alternative energy, and so on and on and on. In light of all these things, in the September 3 post I called the fracking issue a “distraction.”

Naturally, the moderators of the debate addressed only what I had called the “distraction.” Here is the exchange:

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. . . . I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So my values have not changed. . . . Let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.

The key line is “I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President.” Well, neither the Vice President nor the President has the power to ban fracking, at least on private lands and without a specific statute from the Congress. 

But that is a small part of the issue of energy policy, and completely misses the main point, which is that the Biden/Harris administration has done everything in its power to hinder, obstruct, and delay the development of hydrocarbon fuel resources and related infrastructure, whether that be oil and gas wells, pipelines, power plants, combustion vehicles, or anything else. In the September 3 post I had a list of some of the major administration initiatives, including regulations to force the closure of coal and natural gas power plants, restricting drilling (particularly fracking) on federal lands, canceling pipelines, harassing refineries, outlawing combustion vehicles, and more. 

Here from Thomas Pyle at the Institute for Energy Research is a compilation of no fewer than 250 different “ways the Biden-Harris Administration, and their allies, have made it harder to produce oil & gas.” In light of this blizzard of initiatives, the question of “banning fracking” fades to insignificance. These are the initiatives of the Biden/Harris administration, and clearly Harris supports them.

There is no question that Harris is a zero-carbon green radical. Nothing about her carefully scripted statement in the debate about fracking changes that.

The Border

Similarly as with the fracking issue, Harris made statements at the debate about the border situation that cannot be reconciled with the record of the administration. Here is the exchange at the debate:

DAVID MUIR: We're going to turn now to immigration and border security. . . . Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden with getting to the root causes of migration from Central America. We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: . . . [L]et me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. . . .

Again, I would call the bill in question — an early 2024 effort that failed in the Senate — a distraction. When Trump was in office, he had the border largely closed, and when Biden and Harris came in, they threw it open. Nothing about the statutes had changed, and therefore it is clear that no new statute was required to re-instate the Trump policies that had previously mostly closed the border. The Biden/Harris change of policy was a completely intentional effort to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible. There is no reason to think that if suddenly 1500 additional border agents were available that the Biden/Harris administration would have used them to restrict entry at the border in some fashion. Harris’s debate statement therefore is completely contrary to the administration’s own policies.

Decriminalizing border crossings; mandatory gun buy-backs

Here are two question posed by moderator Linsey Davis that Vice President Harris completely failed to answer:

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said . . . [y]ou wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?

This is the same question from Davis where the subject of fracking was broached. In her answer, Harris addressed fracking, but not these other two subjects.

On the issue of decriminalizing border crossings, has there been a single criminal prosecution for crossing the border illegally? Not that I’ve heard of. The administration’s policy could not be clearer.

“Mandatory buyback programs” for guns is another distraction from the moderators. Much more relevant is that, as District Attorney of San Francisco in 2008, Harris signed an amicus brief in the Heller case in the Supreme Court in which she advocated that there is no individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

In short, if you watched the debate or reviewed it afterward, you could easily have gotten impressions of Harris’s positions on critical policy issues that are exactly the opposite of where she really stands, as revealed by her own actions and those of the Biden/Harris administration.

Kamala Harris, Price Controls, and the Contest for the Dumbest Policy Proposal of 2024

August 16, 2024 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

As a Senator, Kamala Harris embraced all sorts of terrible ideas, such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. But she’s now disavowed those proposals in an attempt to make herself seem more reasonable.

Trump, by contrast, is consistent. For better or worse, he’s pushing in 2024 the same agenda that he ran on in 2016 and 2020. The bad news is that means regurgitating some incredibly foolish proposals such as protectionism.

This raises an interesting question: Which candidate has the dumbest proposal of 2024?

They have both embraced the goofy idea of not taxing tips, so that’s a tie.

And they both want to pretend the entitlement problem doesn’t exist, so that’s also a tie.

Looking at proposals that are unique to each candidate, Trump’s call for a giant tax increase on global trade is utterly awful. And, to make matters worse, he’s now suggesting a 20 percent tax on all imports rather than a 10 percent tax.

Given the terrible track record of protectionism (Great Depression, Argentina’s “import substitution,” etc), could there possibly be a worse idea?

Unfortunately, yes.

The worst idea would be socialism, which is what you get when you mix government ownership of the means of production, central planning, and price control (the three-legged stool of statism).

• The good news is that very few politicians want government-run factories and farms.
• The not-so-good news is that some politicians want partial versions of central planning such as industrial policy.
• And the bad news is that at least one prominent politician wants price controls.

That prominent politician, as you might suspect, is Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States and the Democratic presidential nominee.

As part of her campaign, she wants the federal government to have the power to control food prices.

I have a three-part series with videos explaining why price controls are incredibly foolish (see here, here, and here). But some readers may be skeptical since the critics are pro-market economists (as is this guy and this guy).

If so, maybe they will believe Catherine Rampell, a columnist for the Washington Post who has reliably left-wing views on all sorts of issues (unemployment benefits, the debt limit, tax increases, etc). Even she felt compelled to condemn Harris. Here are some excerpts from her latest column.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries… It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk. …At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. …At worst, it might accidentally raise prices. …If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?

She’s right. Harris is proposing an idea that is absurdly bad.

An idea so awful that it copies one of Richard Nixon’s many terrible economic policies.

By the way, I don’t fully embrace everything Ms. Rampell wrote. She fails to recognize that food prices (as well as other prices) increased a few years ago because the central bank created too much liquidity.

She gives the Federal Reserve a pass and instead focuses on things that might cause food prices to change relative to prices of other goods and services.

So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up.

P.S. The reason Trump has called Harris a communist is because she has embraced equality of outcomes, which is disturbingly reminiscent of Marx’s assertion that society should be based on “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

P.P.S. If Harris wins and imposes price controls, the only silver lining to that dark cloud is that we might enjoy something akin to the Germany’s post-war economic miracle. But taking two steps backward to then take one step forward doesn’t seem like a good deal, even though it would be a teachable moment for future students of economics.

Our Rulers: Wrong in Theory, Incompetent in Practice

September 19, 2023 By Christopher Chantrill

 The big takeaway from the western ruling class's war on the rising populist movement is ruling-class failure. Rulers typically don't feel the need to take out the opposition unless they have fluffed it. Or muffed it: I'm not sure which applies here. Hello Fluffy Joe Stalin in the 1930s and Muffy Mao in the 1960s. Frankly I'd prefer if Muffy and Buffy would stick to playing beach volleyball.

Experts agree that Stalin and Mao succumbed to The Totalitarian Temptation, courtesy of Jean-François Revel. But I think the experts are missing the point. The totalitarians weren't so much tempted to go political to the max as carefully taught to do so. That was the Thing in the 19th century: get the politics right and justice will ensue. Fundamental transformation, dontcha know.

Let's tell it like it is. First the educated ruling class was wrong on its theory that politics could lead to justice. Second, the educated ruling class failed when it put its theory of politics-with-everything into action.

The basic error in the Enlightenment was the absurd faith that politics could ever be more than a necessary evil. I get that the educated class needed a political philosophy to justify its overthrow of the old feudal and monarchical order. But I declare that, by 1850 at the latest after nearly a century of revolutions and constitutions, any educated-class thinker with half a brain should have admitted: politics is a very blunt instrument; use only in emergency....................To Read More....